December 9, 2015

"Donald Trump's reprehensible call to bar Muslim immigrants from entering the United States tracks an exam question I’ve been giving my immigration law students since Sept. 11."

"Would such a proposal be constitutional? The answer is not what you might think..."

Unless you've read all the many other op-eds dotted about mainstream media, but this one, by Temple lawprof Peter J. Spiro, caught my eye because I need to write a couple of law school exams and I have never — in 30+ years — reused a question. I've never even taken the same question and tweaked it with the aim of convincing myself I wasn't reusing it.

Anyway. Professor Spiro does a fine job of explaining the Supreme Court's "extreme deference" to Congress and the President under what's known as the "plenary power" doctrine:
It dates back to the 1889 decision in the Chinese Exclusion case, in which the court upheld the exclusion of Chinese laborers based on their nationality... More recent decisions have upheld discrimination against immigrants based on gender and illegitimacy that would never have survived equal protection scrutiny in the domestic context. Likewise, courts have rejected the assertion of First Amendment free speech protections by noncitizens. Nor has the Supreme Court ever struck down an immigration classification, even ones based on race. As late as 1965, a federal appeals court upheld a measure that counted a Brazilian citizen of Japanese descent as Asian for the purposes of immigration quotas. In the context of noncitizens seeking initial entry into the United States, due process protections don’t apply, either....

The courts have justified this constitutional exceptionalism on the grounds that immigration law implicates foreign relations and national security — even in the absence of a specific, plausible foreign policy rationale. The 1977 Fiallo case, for instance, involved a father seeking the admission of his out-of-wedlock son from the French West Indies — hardly the stuff of national interest.

Indeed, contrary to the conventional understanding, President Trump could implement the scheme on his own, without Congress’s approval. The Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president the authority to suspend the entry of “any class of aliens” on his finding that their entry would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
Spiro goes on to say that the Constitution has meaning beyond what the courts are willing to detect and enforce. As he puts it: "Clear popular consensus can establish constitutional norms, with or without the courts."
Mr. Trump’s plan has triggered an uproar across the partisan divide. Perhaps a religion-based immigration bar may be consistent with court-made doctrine. But it doesn’t reflect our deeper, broadly assimilated understandings of the Constitution.
But is there clear popular consensus? I guess we should at least wait for the next round of polls, because Trump is immensely popular, at least with a sizable enough sector of Americans to wreck the clarity of the picture of popular consensus. Politicians and commentators are trying to lead a chorus of shaming, but Trump may be saying what many are thinking but don't want to be caught singing out.

This "constitutional norms" idea is self-canceling. Trump can't do what he's proposing unless he gets elected, and he won't be elected unless people support him, and if people support him then those constitutional norms that forbid what he's proposing don't exist. 

114 comments:

AllenS said...

After the Iranian hostage situation, President Carter banned Iranians from our shores.

Gabriel said...

From Scott Adams:

propose that instead of calling fellow citizens racists or idiots we do a deeper dive into the risks and put a price tag on our preference for religious intolerance. If the risk of future terror attacks is tiny, most of us would prefer maintaining our respect for religious differences.

But if the risk is more than tiny, can you put a price on your love of religious tolerance? In other words, how many dead Americans are you willing to accept? I’ll go first.

Personally, I would accept up to 1,000 dead Americans, over a ten-year period, to allow Muslim non-citizens to enter this country. My calculation assumes we are better off accepting some degree of tragedy in the name of freedom. That is often the case with freedom.

If you believe there is no risk from allowing Muslim immigration to continue as is, please explain that thinking in the comments. I have not seen that argument yet.


I would encourage everyone to answer that question too. I would be comfortable with up to 5,000 dead Americans in a one-year period, in order to allow Muslim non-citizens to enter this country.

That already happened, of course, in 2001.

Michael K said...

The ruling class completely misses the public's concerns. I guess having armed guards around all the time insulates you from reality.

This might be enough to elect Trump. I have been very skeptical of his chances but they seem to be improved by this uproar.

I am still worried about him.

David Begley said...

Save time. Go back 10 years and start re-using exam questions.

CStanley said...

A lot of clarity comes to this issue if we can stipulate that Islam is both a religion and a political ideology. People have a right to worship but not to subvert and attack our system.

I don't know much about the history of immigration law, but I do know that some of my ancestors had to swear an oath that they were not anarchists (this in the wake of the assassination of President McKinley.) why not a similar test now, asking Muslim immigrants to foreswear Sharia law?

Anglelyne said...

But it doesn’t reflect our deeper, broadly assimilated understandings of the Constitution.

"By 'deeper, broadly assimilated understandings', I mean stuff that judges and law professors like me have conjured out of thin air in the last few decades", and by 'our', I mean the enlightened people who know it's time to move past lame stuff like national sovereignty, national interest, and 'citizens'".

Larry J said...

Restrictions on immigration have been implemented many times before. The female terrorist from San Bernardino lied about her address on her visa application. That proves she wasn't properly vetted. Obama wants to bring in thousands of Syrian refugees but the FBI Director says it's impossible to vet them. The databases needed to vet them are either unavailable or simply don't exist.

MadisonMan said...

That was a good article to read. Thanks.

I think Trump is being ridiculous on this subject, as the USA is nothing if not welcoming to people yearning to be free -- and what supplicant has a better argument than some woman suffering under the oppressive yoke of Islam? I'm pleased to see many politicians calling Trump out on this topic.

To be completely safe is to chase a goal that can never be reached.

Coupe said...

The Constitution shouldn't be a bar to anything.

If you ask any criminal "Didn't you know stealing was against the law?" They always say the same thing: "Only if you get caught."

Extrapolate that a bit, "Only if the Courts declare it un-Constitutional."

In which case you may have years to operate before the court catches-up.

I can see where non-citizens could be excluded from citizens rights. Passes the one drink test. I don't even have to be drunk to understand it.

grackle said...

Would such a proposal be constitutional? The answer is not what you might think...

But, professor, we have had every talking head in existence that have been proclaiming in their most scornful tone of voice that what Trump proposes is obviously “unconstitutional.”

Maybe I’m wrong, but I am thinking that the Trump-slayers in the MSM, the GOP establishment, the Democrats and academia may be mighty disappointed in the next round of polls.

Wouldn’t it be funny, or ironic, or something if Trump emerges from all this faux-outrage more popular than ever?

Obama’s opposite. Maybe the voters are yearning for a candidate that is as far away from Obama in temperament, philosophy and methods as possible.

If the GOP candidates think that they will obtain the Holy Grail by jumping on the kill-Trump bandwagon I sincerely believe they are dead wrong.

Trump has very good enemies.

pm317 said...

I think Trump is sloppy about this. He should have framed it differently instead of saying ban on all Muslims. He should have instead said, restrictions and more scrutiny on immigrants from certain countries that engage in enabling and fostering terrorism for the simple reason that we don't know who are coming in. In the San Bernadino case, we have the utter failure of the background check on that woman. Countries have been routinely sanctioned and shunned. So go after the state players, the Saudis and the Turks who are helping ISIS; go after Pakistan and its IS for supporting terrorist groups which cause havoc outside of its country. But in many of these cases, US calls these countries its allies. There in lies the problem.

Bob R said...

Never reused a question? That's really interesting. I can't imagine doing that in math. The sensitivity of a problem to even small changes in parameters or wording is much greater. Two problems that seem very similar and test the same concepts or skills can take very different amounts of time to complete. We are facing a daunting situation where classic texts with great, incisive problems (e.g. by the UW's Walter Rudin) have all the answers on line. It's not a simple task to create problems as elegant.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

By banning Sharia Muslims, we're saving them time. To become a citizen, they have to take and mean an oath that would put the US Constitution, and our laws, above Sharia.

If they are unwilling to do that, then they can't be citizens. If they can't become citizens, we don't need or want them. Might as well find out from the jump.

Curious George said...

"The Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president the authority to suspend the entry of “any class of aliens” on his finding that their entry would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

If Muslims don't fit this description, who does?

Sebastian said...

"This "constitutional norms" idea is self-canceling. Trump can't do what he's proposing unless he gets elected, and he won't be elected unless people support him, and if people support him then those constitutional norms that forbid what he's proposing don't exist."

You are assuming Trump's critics are arguing in good faith. This wouldn't be the same Spiro who has argued for "subordinating" the Constitution to international law, which needs to be "insinuated" into US law, would it? Well, yes, yes it would be the very same one. In this case, in keeping with living-Constitution active-liberty jurisprudence, appeals to public opinion are a form of selective special pleading. "Constitutional norms" get invoked just as long as they help to produce a particular outcome, and not a moment longer.

Coupe said...

Spiro says...and bring its reading of the Constitution in line with the public’s own, more progressive constitutional norms.

There's that progressive word again.

The Spiro public be damned. The Constitution is too important to submit to popular interpretation. If you want the Constitution to say something it doesn't now, then Amend it.

Laslo Spatula said...

:But it doesn’t reflect our deeper, broadly assimilated understandings of the Constitution."

Broadly assimilated, all the way from Harvard to Yale, from the New York Times to the Washington Post, from NBC to CBS to CNN.

THAT broad.

I am Laslo.

Hagar said...

Once again Trump has got us talking about something that needs talking about.

His "proposal" (in quotes as most Trump proposals should be) may run afoul of the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause, but then the Constitution only applies to citizens (though Democrats say it also applies to all "undocumented Democrats" of whatever kind).

However, it is not a suicide pact, as someone stated. The current media absolutely refuse to take notice of the abhorrent (to us) statements in the Koran regarding Jews and infidels, Shia Taqiyya, etc., but fairly reliable sources assure us that these statements are there, and have not been, nor are being, renounced by any recognized (by them) Moslem authority. This would also be difficult for them to do, since the Koran is supposed to be perfect and must not be questioned in any way until Judgment Day, or so we are told.

However, it looks to me like Moslems must agree that these statements are 7th century stuff and not applicable to today's world, or we are justified in enacting restricting laws to protect ourselves against being forcibly converted.

As for the Establishment Clause, Justice Black already succeeded in setting that on its head for "progressive" purposes, and I am sure that the Supremes can easily get around it today on self-preservation grounds. May not even need to go there; just look at how fines are taxes, or not, depending on how you tilt the card in the light.

Roughcoat said...

How/why is it "reprehensible"?

Birkel said...

Dilbert creator Scott Adams has, I believe, the right question.

Hagar said...

Come to think of it, Taqiyya can't be only Shia doctrine; the Ottoman sultans were advised at least twice that breaking treaties with and solemn oaths to infidels were not sins, but a virtue done in the service of Islam.

Gusty Winds said...

From Wikipedia on Ideological restrictions on naturalization in U.S. law.

"Several ideological requirements for naturalization remain under U.S. law. First is the requirement that the applicant be "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same."

Seems from a quick search that in 1952 we banned Communists from entering passing an Immigration and Nationality Act.

The current naturalization oath states:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God

Although we operate with wide open doors, a willingness to adhere to, or assimilate are a desired in our immigration process.

Michael McClain said...

Immigration is not a right. Entry to this country should be managed for our benefit, not the benefit of everyone who happens to show up at the border.

Fernandinande said...

Same question on Volokh:
"Banning Muslims from entering the U.S. is a very bad idea — but it may be constitutionally permissible"

DanTheMan said...

So, everybody in the entire world has a first amendment right to enter the United States?

Gusty Winds said...

I still don't think Trumps all out ban on Muslim immigration is for real. Once everyone calms down, and has a change to take a few laps on the collective high horse, we'll get to a serious discussion about vetting incoming Muslim religious refugees.

It is within our historic and current values to take in those trying to escape religious persecution. But obviously, there are certain people we don't want in.

If you want to launch a boat in a Wisconsin lake, the DNR wants you to wash it off to prevent the spread of zebra mussels. At our family lake house in Ocomomowoc, we can't even walk in the water off the shore without swimming shoes or we will cut our feet. Some asshole didn't wash off his boat at the public launch about ten years ago.

Fandor said...

The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, and Asian Exclusion Act (Pub.L. 68–139, 43 Stat. 153, enacted May 26, 1924), was a United States federal law that limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, down from the 3% cap set by the Immigration Restriction Act of 1921, according to the Census of 1890. It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was primarily aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans.[1] In addition, it severely restricted the immigration of Africans and outright banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians. According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian the purpose of the act was "to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity".[2] Congressional opposition was minimal.

Unknown said...

I once needed to proctor and mark an exam for an ill colleague, and out of curiosity calculated for each question the percent of exam-takers that got each question wrong.
For some questions where students did poorly, it was obvious at second glance that there was unintended ambiguity in the facts stated or the question itself, just because of poor drafting. The poor responses did not reflect lack of knowledge of the material, but a bad question.
In response to this, I now do an after-the-fact analysis of my own exam questions and do reuse the ones (with tweaking) that perform best at elucidating their knowledge (or lack thereof) rather than just confusing them.

tim in vermont said...

"Constitutional" means things I like that help my partisan side politically, "Unconstitutional" is everything else. The job of law professor seems to amount to teaching people how to construct rationalizations for the result they already want.

I guess that is true of all law practice. 'I didn't ask you what was right or wrong young man, I asked you to help us win!" or something like that, was a line from "The Mighty Ducks."

Fandor said...

The Immigration Act of 1924 remained in effect until 1964.
Guess who and what party was responsible for opening the gates...

Peter said...

The constitutional argument here doesn't seem radical. Certainly few would object if immigrants espousing Nazi ideology, or other racial-supremacist ideologies, were not admitted. Even though most Americans will acknowledge that espousing and promoting such ideologies by peaceful means is constitutionally protected expression. After all, citizens have guaranteed constitutional rights but no one has a right to immigrate.

The reason Islam creates a political problem is because of the word "religion." The problem is that Islam is not just a religion, it can also be a complete legal system, as well as an ideology that predicts and espouses world domination by Muslims.

It's hard to see anyone getting all that upset because someone's praying to a different God, but not hard at all to be upset at would-be Americans who would destroy the freedoms guaranteed in our Bill of Rights (death for apostasy?), or who would work toward a world in which all must either convert, submit, or die. Sharia law and Muslim supremacism seem as ugly to many Americans as other forms of totalitarian or supremacist ideology, and we need not accept those who espouse them.

Americans (and Europeans, and others) seldom have a problem with Islam the religion; the problem is with Islam the legal system and Islam the totalitarian ideology. I don't know if Muslims are able to separate these components and discard the non-religious parts; perhaps so. But I also don't see why the U.S. legal system, including immigration law, could not or should not make legal distinctions between these components.

JAORE said...

"The fact that many Americans seem to assume Mr. Trump’s proposal is unconstitutional means that the courts need to catch up with the public on immigration."

And there it is....

Constitutional should be what "many Americans seem to assume".

JAORE said...

And the author teaches "Constitutional law".....



gerry said...

Althouse must have her fingers crossed that an emerging consensus won't support Trump. She needn't worry, unless something happens in a fairly specific place.

Now, taking the recent past as measures of the number of citizen murders that must occur before Progressives will react positively to defending ourselves, I'd guess it will take at least 10,000 simultaneous deaths to trigger that consensus. Since Progressives would not take 10,000 deaths in, say, Indianapolis to be the deaths of Progressives - the Progressive class would rather see that as the deaths of rubes rather than the deaths of citizens of quality - the slaughter must also take place in a locale that contains high concentrations of Progressives. So, that means that the location of a mass killing must take place in New York, Chicago, or San Francisco.

NEW YORK
New York has a problem as a candidate location since it has a high concentration of Jews. I mean, Jesse Jackson referred to New York City as "Hymietown", after all. So if New York was hit, Progressives might react with "Well, with their support of Israel, they had it coming." So: if a massive attack that kills 10,000+ citizens in New York occurs, no consensus will emerge to aggressively defend the nation. Progressive elites will give terrorists a rationale for the attack and, therefore, assume it was something New York deserved.

CHICAGO
Chicago also has a problem similar to New York, but its problem is not Jews directly, it is African-Americans. Since it appears that Rahm Emmanuel allows blacks to be killed by police with impunity either because of a labor union-machine politics thing, or because of electoral timing factors, the they-had-it-coming sentiment likely will interfere with Progressive elite support of a broad consensus supporting national defense as a measure against slaughter of civilians (at least in Chicago). So, an attack in Chicago with 10,000 deaths of citizens will not motivate a strong defense of the nation in the Progressive world.

(And I know that Emmanuel is Jewish - and that may tempt some Progressives to tamp down self-preservation reactions to massive bloodshed among the citizenry - but Emmanuel is so like them that most Progressives won't see him as "the other" deserving of death. Therefore, Emmanuel's Jewishness won't be a factor in Progressives' suppression of self-defense instincts.)

SAN FRANCISCO
So, it seems San Francisco must be the site of a vicious Islamist attack that results in at least 10,000 deaths for a consensus to vigorously defend the nation to develop. With its status as a Progressive model city with a huge gay segment and its sanctuary city policies, Progressives would eagerly see a San Francisco holocaust as valid motivation to defend the rest of America against wanton bloody death using almost any means imaginable.

If anything happens pretty much anywhere else, things will be just as Dear Leader wants them to be.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

This is interesting

vet (v.)

"to submit (an animal) to veterinary care," 1891, from veterinarian. The colloquial sense of "subject (something) to careful examination" (as of an animal by a veterinarian, especially of a horse before a race) is attested by 1901. Related: Vetted; vetting.


Let's see those teeth, Ahmed!

Snark said...

Such a rational conversation about the reasonableness of state sanctioned racism. The banality of evil indeed.

Writ Small said...

You do have to give Trump credit for pushing the entire conversation to the Right.

It's notable that Trump's people first said the ban included overseas American Muslims. Since this proposal was not the product of a reporter feeding him the idea, that is a little disturbing. You can't make the usual excuses for the man, and it shows Trump's team does not instinctively look to the Constitution for guidance. After years of Obama pushing boundaries in a dangerous direction, I don't think the right response if for our side to do it to them.

But those objections aside, I don't have an issue with his proposal and it is politically useful for it to be introduced into the discussion.

Dr.D said...

Trump's suggestion to ban muslims is spot on! It is exactly what we need for the safety and security of this country. Yes, members of other groups engage in occasional violence, but never with the religiously commanded zeal of the muslims. The koran commands them to conquer the world, and they fully believe that.

I've know a few muslims from time to time, and while none of them were violent that I knew about, it is also true that none of them saw themselves as truly Americans. They were muslims first, last, and always.

Trump is right! Eliminate ALL muslims!!

tim in vermont said...

I don't think I could vote for Trump, and I don't think he would make a good president, but he is THE BEST candidate for president we could hope for right now in terms of moving the "Overton Window" I just wish one of the serious guys would pick up on his ideas and drop the careless language. In my mind sloppy language = sloppy thinking.

Plus he is the exact same breed of crony capitalist that Hillary is. It would be nice to have a choice.

Mike said...

It amazes me how few in MSM do any homework at all. I'm not talking about all the opinions on what Trump said, but the Big Picture let's-look-at-it-in-context work that isn't done. He set it out there for everyone to see when he ANNOUNCED his campaign. He must have mentioned Art of the Deal a hundred times that first day. And he kept saying, "Obama makes bad deals. I'll make great deals." Over and over he pegged negotiation as his strength.

So have any MSM airheads read his book or looked at his pattern of "extreme position / dominate news cycle / everyone agrees a less extreme position is doable / say something extreme / dominate news cycle ...

I mean, that pattern is OBVIOUS if you take yourself out of the emotion of the outrageous thing he says and just watch him work the media like marionettes. They've been LINING UP this week to get interviews with him. Barbara Walters crawled out of "retirement" to score the big ABC get with Trump! Why? Because they are too stupid to stop playing his game. He just keeps drawing free media like a hurricane.

So what's Trump's deal? He says in his book ("It's a terrific book. Number one seller!") that in any serious negotiation, when you must have X you ask for something outrageous so that by the time compromise is achieved and the dust settles the outrageous proposal is off the table and the agreement includes X, the must-have item. Just to take a guess at the current kerfuffle I'd posit that X is "control of our borders" (hmm that sounds really familiar as a campaign theme) or some version of defending thew homeland against jihad. It doesn't really matter right now. What matters is that Trump got everybody talking about the "impossible and outrageous" (and I think his proposal is neither, and when stripped down is very close to the "pause" legislation proposed by Cruz a year or so ago to temporarily halt refugee immigration and nothing like the 40-year moratorium on immigration from 1924 to 1965 or the other specific bans mentioned above by others) and got his free media and made all the stupid Republicans running sound JUST LIKE Hillary and Obama with their pooh-poohing of his "xenophobia" and thus makes him stand out as the one non-politician willing to say what people really think. And people DO think we need to step back from the Syrian refugee thing at a minimum and maybe pause all immigration for a short term to set up proper vetting. NO ONE trusts the current President on immigration, and that's why I think Trump keeps hitting this subject. Stopping terrorists from getting in has got to be hard when Obama doesn't want to stop ANYONE from crossing the border.

He's a media genius who keeps using 7th-grade vocabulary to run circles around the media elite. The public has a firm perception of him so the MSM can't "otherize" him and push him out of the spotlight. He's too good for ratings for them to ignore, and they keep coming back to proclaim his demise only to see him rise in the polls even more. It's fun to watch.

dreams said...

Arthur Laffer said on Fox business this morning that no one would eat out of a bowl of a thousand M&Ms if they were told that at least five of them were poisonous but we're expected to accept these refugees when we know that some of them are likely terrorists. Also notice all the news the last few days about Chipotle and contaminated food, common sense.

Also, based on what I've read of those who I respect, I think it is constitutional.

tim in vermont said...

Constitutional should be what "many Americans seem to assume".

I know, right? I mean us hillbillies believe that is what elections are for. Plus, your analysis, to be correct should be "many Americans who live in Manhattan or Ann Arbor seem to assume."

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Trump's proposal gives the radicalizers a huge piece of proganda that can be used against our country long after he departs the political scene. Its effects as a tool for radicalization would be even worse if it were actually implemented. A cunning plan? Hardly. What Time acknowledges by naming Angela Merkel as Person of the Year, that's cunning.

The appeal of Trump is that the U.S. needs its own Putin. We'd do better to get our own Merkel.

Coupe said...

I think Muslims should be banned from any western civilization. I would go so far as to wipe them out as western civilization did the Knights Templar.

Same with the Branch Davidians. Poof, you're dead.

Michael said...

Trump has no interest in being president. He is laying the table for Ted Cruz who will look like a lefty when Trump lays down his sword.

In the meantime it is stunning to see how stupid we have become, how we have exchanged common sense for self righteousness, analytical skills for slogans, deep thought for frowny faces of concern. Love our enemies? We give them the keys to our homes, we squander our culture to feel good about ourselves and make them feel welcome and dance on hot coals if it makes them feel less threatened by the potential of someone somewhere saying something mean about them. It is remarkable.

Curious George said...

"MadisonMan said...
I think Trump is being ridiculous on this subject, as the USA is nothing if not welcoming to people yearning to be free -- and what supplicant has a better argument than some woman suffering under the oppressive yoke of Islam? I'm pleased to see many politicians calling Trump out on this topic.

To be completely safe is to chase a goal that can never be reached."

What a steaming pile. Islamic immigrants aren't fleeing Islam, they are fleeing violence. And show me a western country that hasn't had huge problems with this population assimilating into their national culture.

"To be completely safe is to chase a goal that can never be reached" is even worse. Show me one person that has said banning Muslim immigration (or anything actually) would make us completely safe. This is the same fucking bullshit Obama pulls. Pathetic.

MountainMan said...


From David French at National Review:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428200/donald-trump-overton-window-american-political-debate

Anglelyne said...

MadisonMan: ...as the USA is nothing if not welcoming to people yearning to be free...

Contrary to the fond beliefs of some Americans, the poetasterical meanderings of one Emma Lazarus are not to be found in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or indeed in any of the founding documents of this nation.

Not that this disproves your claim, MM. Depending on who you ask, the "USA was nothing" prior to 1965, or 2015, or perhaps some date in the future when it's declared unconstitutional not to allow anyone in the world to move to the USA and become citizens (as well as pay for their airfare here).

Apparently you date the USA becoming a non-nothing to 1903.

Sebastian said...

OK, so the anointed think that banning Muslims is a bad idea. But does it follow that admitting Muslims is a good idea? If so, why? (And I mean, beyond the boilerplate non-reasons that exclusion would be impractical or discriminatory--why would admitting more be a positively good idea, positively good for America and Americans.)

Robin Eatmon said...

Trump is moving the Overton Window...alone.

Anonymous said...

Where was all this crying about Trump being Hitler when Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from coming to US?? The always hypocritical left in a tizzy again.....http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261062/carter-banned-iranians-coming-us-during-hostage-daniel-greenfield

Jupiter said...

"Indeed, contrary to the conventional understanding, President Trump could implement the scheme on his own, without Congress’s approval."

Which is to say, that the next batch of Americans killed by Muslim immigrants can thank Barack Obama.

damikesc said...

Is there really a debate if banning immigration for any group being illegal? Hell, Carter shut down visas from Iran completely. Immigrating here isn't a right anybody has.

and what supplicant has a better argument than some woman suffering under the oppressive yoke of Islam?

But the woman in the attacks wasn't that. So, no, a woman there doesn't have a rock solid argument.

And who has a better argument? A Christian from there. And that makes up about .4% of approved migrants so far.

We need to become way pickier on who comes in.

cubanbob said...

So far the law on the books and the court rulings that are still in effect support Trump's position. We may or may not like his position but legally he isn't wrong. I suspect that Trump isn't just shooting his mouth off without any thinking or consideration. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if he had someone on his staff do a little bit of research on this aspect of the law and the relevant court rulings. I suspect that soon enough Trump will come out in favor of detention of all illegal aliens who have criminal convictions (after serving their sentence or paroled) and if I am not mistaken based on various Supreme Court rulings he just might be able to do that if elected. Trump's position transcends Muslims as it can be easily used to keep out Central American and Mexican gang members and deport or intern them if they are already here. Trump just might be serious about getting elected president and progressives and liberals be damned his positions are garnering him huge support.

cubanbob said...

Blogger MadisonMan said...
That was a good article to read. Thanks.

To be completely safe is to chase a goal that can never be reached.

12/9/15, 7:42 AM"

Do you also take that position on Global Warming? At least Trump's advocacy of the exclusionary principle seems more plausible with respects to terrorism and immigration than that of the dubious assumptions and data that the Global Warming models are based on.

Dan Hossley said...

There has been an inordinate amount of jammering on the constitutionality of Trumps proposal, which was that we should stop letting Muslims in until our elected officials figure out what "the hell is going on".

Plain reading of that proposal means that it is a temporary ban, so the constitutionality of the question would never make it to the Supreme Court in time.

On the other hand, a good case could be made that it is unlikely that the condition for reinstating Muslim immigration would never be met. That is to say, that our elected officials will never figure out what the hell is going on.

Rick said...

I suspect that Trump isn't just shooting his mouth off without any thinking or consideration.

I suspect Trump is just shooting his mouth off but this contretemps demonstrates that his critics are doing the same thing. Ultimately this is what drives his popularity. I don't think everyone who supports Trump believes this is the best solution. I think many of them (and others) reject the pro-immigration effort to place honest evaluation off limits by referring to anyone not for completely open borders as a bigot.

cubanbob said...

Blogger Gabriel said...
From Scott Adams:

propose that instead of calling fellow citizens racists or idiots we do a deeper dive into the risks and put a price tag on our preference for religious intolerance. If the risk of future terror attacks is tiny, most of us would prefer maintaining our respect for religious differences.

But if the risk is more than tiny, can you put a price on your love of religious tolerance? In other words, how many dead Americans are you willing to accept? I’ll go first.

Personally, I would accept up to 1,000 dead Americans, over a ten-year period, to allow Muslim non-citizens to enter this country. My calculation assumes we are better off accepting some degree of tragedy in the name of freedom. That is often the case with freedom."

Adams is spouting a lot of self-virtuous signally crap. He would accept a 1,000 dead Americas over a ten year period? Would he include himself and his loved ones in that 1,000?
His calculation of what? How is freedom here advanced by accepting immigrants who hold views that are incompatible with US values? How will freedom here be diminished if there is a moratorium on Muslim immigration? I'm not advocating for or against Trump's position but for all of the hysteria of his critics they have yet to make a relevant point against him on this issue.

LarsPorsena said...

@Madison
"..as the USA is nothing if not welcoming to people yearning to be free -- and what supplicant has a better argument than some woman suffering under the oppressive yoke of Islam?"

That's what Tasheen said at the consulate when she got her visa "I'm yearning to be free."

Over the last 30 years we have not been getting people who are yearning to be free.
We're getting people yearning for a freebie.

David Aitken said...


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

. . . no one would eat out of a bowl of a thousand M&Ms if they were told that at least five of them were poisonous . . .

The general principle here is: "It's not the odds, it's the stakes."

Unknown said...

Blogger Snark said, re "Such a rational conversation about the reasonableness of state sanctioned racism. The banality of evil indeed."

What race are you talking about? Let me suggest that it's racist to declare any specific race as Muslim, and deeply bigoted to declare Muslim as a race.

Trump's strategy strikes me as Democratic. When you want to justify the murder of innocents, declare the enemy has a war on women. When you want to stop the influx of an anti-American and dangerous (in a literal sense) ideology, demand it's potential adherents be banned.

Hagar said...

If we hear Moslem imams telling their flocks that taqiyya is a later interpretation of texts in the Koran to OK the caliph or sultan to do what he wanted to do anyway, and really has no more standing than eating fish on Fridays has for Catholics (put out by a Basque pope wishing to help the Basque fishing industry back home) and no standing at all when taking the naturalization oath, it would help.

Hagar said...

And I am fairly certain it is a later interpretation. If it was in the Koran, he could read it for himself; he would not need to go asking the religious council for advice on the question.

Anonymous said...

I posted this in another thread, but here is the relevant passage from the US Legal Code. Someone will have to explain it to Snark. Perhaps his healthcare specialist will do it:

8 U.S. Code 1182 (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. ..."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182#

tim in vermont said...

"Such a rational conversation about the reasonableness of state sanctioned racism. The banality of evil indeed."

"Shut up, she explained."

Because Racism! and Evil! Whatever I do, I swear I will never examine the premises behind my beliefs! That will never happen because RACISM!

Gabriel said...

@cubanbob:Adams is spouting a lot of self-virtuous signally crap. He would accept a 1,000 dead Americas over a ten year period? Would he include himself and his loved ones in that 1,000?

I included the link so that you get the full context. For example, he point sou tthat it's not enough to volunteer to be one of the victims of our freedom, because you can't know in advance who the victims will be and you can;t draw the risk onto your own shoulders: your choice necessitates the death of people who do not share your ideals.

I suggest you click on it before you condemn something you don't bother to understand. tl, dr version:

All he's saying here is that we need to think like adults.

We could avoid all immigrant terrorism forever by forbidding all immigration altogether, or we could allow some and accept a level of risk. (Don't forget that terrorists can lie, and come here from countries they are not from.) Fine, what level of risk do you accept? And if you think we can allow some without any risk, he invites you to explain how you know that, because no one ever does.

Fpervis said...

I was on the fence on supporting Trump. Now I am in full support and will vote for him as the only candidate with the courage to say what needs to be said about oue enemy in the war against terror. And if the Republican Party chooses to go after him and drive him out, they will drive me and thousands of others in every state from the party. They need to think about this very hard because it also means they will propsnly lose those votes for their federal and state elections as well.

Gusty Winds said...

France is raiding and shutting down Mosques using their temporary state of emergency powers.

Many of my Facebook friends who covered their profile picture in the translucent French flag in support of Paris after the attacks, are today joining the group think righteous indignation condemning Trump. They've already stopped paying attention to Paris.

Most Americans are lemmings with short attention spans.

Anglelyne said...

Left Bank of the Charles: Trump's proposal gives the radicalizers a huge piece of proganda that can be used against our country long after he departs the political scene. Its effects as a tool for radicalization would be even worse if it were actually implemented.

Permit me a bit of concern-trolling here: Lefties ought to be trying to advance intelligent and persuasive arguments regarding the radicalizing effects of our current (bipartisan) incompetent foreign policy, and marginalizing the purveyors of this kind of "if we don't let foreigners dictate our domestic policy we're playing right into the terrorists'hands!" dingbattery. Muslim immigration into the U.S. has been ramped up considerably since 9/11. I'm sure there are apparatchiks out there who will tell you that this has significantly reduced the terrorist thread at home and abroad, but...well, one is understandably cynical about claims that can't be proved and which bear a dubious relation to common perception.

Porous borders for Muslim migration doesn't seem to be doing much for Europe's terrorism problems recently, either. If people are radicalized by a foreign country's denial of some imagined "right" for them or other members of their group to emigrate there, a self-respecting target country cannot adjust its policy to "fix" such blackmailing arrogance. Reconsider its possibly counter-productive foreign policy affecting these people in their own territory? Certainly, and a different story entirely.

A cunning plan? Hardly. What Time acknowledges by naming Angela Merkel as Person of the Year, that's cunning.

Baldrickian cunning, sure.

The appeal of Trump is that the U.S. needs its own Putin. We'd do better to get our own Merkel.

No thanks. Go play civil war vidya games to your hearts content in your own basement, bub. Most of us would prefer to avoid a real one.

hombre said...

In 1979, President Carter prohibited Iranians entry into the US. Also Iranian students were ordered to report to immigration and renewal of existing visas, for the most part, was prohibited. Roughly 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the country.

Funny, I don't remember the hue and cry from fatuous law professors, the mediaswine, the morons in charge of the GOP, Democrats, or the other usual suspects. I think I do remember at least one federal court upholding the treatment of the students.

Since when does the "American Way" encompass the wholesale admission of any group 50% of whom are military age young men fitting the profile of terrorists and suicide bombers, but not fitting the traditional profile of refugees from war torn areas.

Trump wouldn't have the following he has if our ruling class, mediaswine and so-called intellectuals hadn't become so obviously stupid since 1979.

hombre said...

"... and what supplicant has a better argument than some woman suffering under the oppressive yoke of Islam? "

Good lord, MM, do you really believe they will escape that yoke here? For how long?

James Pawlak said...

Lies upon lies.

I do NOT like Donald Trump. But, everyone has "submitted" to Islam by failing to note that the proposed ban WAS ONLY UNTIL OUR OFFICIALS CAN, MORE CLEARLY, DEMONSTRATE THAT WE ARE NOT TAKING IN THOSE WHO WILL WAGE JIHAD IN THE USA--As those two monsters in California.

jr565 said...

Jimmy carter already did what Trump proposed. Which would make carter as bad as hitler. Or, suggests carter was out of step with our values. Or suggests that those making the case against trump don't really know history that well.

Similarly to how Obama brought up the Nuremberg trials as a counter to us trying terrorists under military tribunals, not awAre or ignoring that the Nurember trials were actually tribunals. And the left jumped in, pushing his talking point since they don't really know, they just hear a talking point and regurgitate it. As they are doing here.

Note, I'm not saying I agree with Trump here.

Snark said...

Unknown ~ That something is widely supported, democratically determined, reflective of a certain zeitgeist, linkable to some legal precedent or just bang up popular around the dinner tables of America says nothing independent about it's wisdom or morality. You can make a rational argument about just about anything if you zoom in close enough, if you isolate it enough. That cramped, distorted perspective gives form to our basest fears and resentments, and brick by brick that is how societies reason themselves into the normalization of things from the merely unjust to the truly terrible.

Trump is a buffoon and all these efforts to find meaning and substance in his buffoonery are difficult to watch, even for those who find a certain schadenfreude in watching America be stupid. He's not the conservatives' proxy in a war against a left leaning media. He's not trading in suffocating political correctness for a refreshing, unapologetic honesty. He's not making America great again. Zoom out. He's a complete f*cking buffoon with virtually nothing to say that isn't distressingly ugly and in some way or other at least slightly absurd. He is, I hope, the American far right's nadir in this tendency to reality show-like candidates that has been building over the last few election cycles to this absurd denouement of an actual reality show candidate. Christ on a pony.

hombre said...

Snark: "Such a rational conversation about the reasonableness of state sanctioned racism. The banality of evil indeed." 9:17 AM

"Racism?" Islam is a race? Democrat talking point! What chance does the Republic have for survival when nearly half its population swallows this kind of stupidity without noticing how stupid it is.

Nerobama fiddles. The nation burns.

n.n said...

Travel restrictions based on commonly held principles (e.g. universal, coercive cult/ideology) and allegiance (e.g. national, tribal, regime) is commonplace.

That said, The Constitution identifies two parties to its contract: We the People and Posterity. It required looking into the penumbra (i.e. fringe legal and moral principles) in order to selectively (i.e. indiscriminately) excise the second party. It would require only upholding mainstream principles and common law to exclude alien immigration on commonly held principles or allegiance that are hostile to We the People and unplanned Posterity.

Steve M. Galbraith said...

Such a rational conversation about the reasonableness of state sanctioned racism. The banality of evil indeed.

For the ten thousandth time (not that another one will work) Islam is not a race.

The consensus view is that the US will be hit again. Perhaps several times. By those espousing radical Islam.

Should we try and mitigate that by changing our immigration laws? For a time?

Yes, that's far different than what the idiot Trump suggested. But the idea of having to do this - reluctantly and carefully - may have to be considered.

To dismiss it as racism is just responding to Trump's silliness with more silliness.

jr565 said...

Lets ask Posner about the constitutionality of this. I think he'd argue it would be constitutional if it was popular.

mikee said...

Althouse's last paragraph defines one issue for leftists who propound a living constitution: most people don't like that concept, and won't stand for it.

This is not a problem, just an issue, for leftists because all they care about is power and control, not fine points of public opinion or the law.

So they have that going for them, which is nice.

n.n said...

There is also the recent "=" precedent, celebrated by Obama, Democrats, and mainstream civil rights groups, that established constitutional and institutional discrimination or selective exclusion based on nothing more than politically favored classes.

Islam, a religion marred by its marriage to a left-wing ideology, not only maintains a universal outlook, but is also spread through coercion and force. Principles matter. Muslims are not generally pro-choice. Although, they do have the doctrine of Taqiya that sanctifies a liberal interpretation and application of principles similar to the pro-choice doctrine.

Beach Brutus said...

Progressives have to come to terms with the fact that multiculturalism does not work. Cultures can clash. Immigration regulation once understood this. Immigration quotas were built around the notion of what type of people from what type of cultures will complement American society and culture. The emphasis was on who would happily assimilate. Who could our national stomach digest without causing societal nausea? The Islamic experiment should be over. Policy is not based on individual due process -- foreigners do not have a due process right to enter Our country. Policy is based on trends and generalities.

To the extent the USA has successfully assimilated peoples with differing cultures is because those immigrating here from those cultures, even while differing in some respects, accepted the prevailing Christo/American concept of separation of church and state (e.g. rendering unto Caesar - and rendering unto the Lord). Islamic doctrine and tradition does not just disagree with this but sees it as heresy. Toleration of other faiths is not to them a virtue but a sin to be stamped out in tandem with the other faiths themselves.

The Sleeper Cell killings in San Bernardino bear this out. The killers could not be vetted and could not be profiled. A milquetoast government inspector who had worked seemingly amicably with his colleagues for years leaves the office holiday party, and at picture time some are saying "We're missing Syed ... where is Syed?". They found out shortly when he returned in body armor, heavily armed with firearms and pipe bombs, all assembled in previous months just for this occasion. They had no warning or advance indication of his evil intent, and had offered no provocation. Just like the victims at Fort Hood (except there, there were those in the chain of command who did have indications of his state of mind but chose to disregard it).

As these episodes repeat and multiply, here and in other Western countries, it is clear that, as a general matter, our society and culture is not complemented by those adhering to the Islamic faith. A critical quantum of them have come with hatred for us, our traditions and mores; intolerant of our toleration; and perpetrating violence against us for purposes of undermining the peace and safety of our homes in service of terror to force us to adopt their hellish traditions.

It is a shame that what should be a serious policy discussion should be brought up by a candidate known more for flamboyance than substance.

eric said...

Blogger tim in vermont said...
I don't think I could vote for Trump, and I don't think he would make a good president, but he is THE BEST candidate for president we could hope for right now in terms of moving the "Overton Window"



This is being missed by a lot of people. I support Trump for this reason. We have moved so far to the left, I'm not at all worried about moving to far to the right. I'd like to see the country move to the right, even an inch.

I'd like to see taxes go down. If Trump proposed ending taxation, does anyone think that would happen? Of course not. But if you start from there, you're bound to get lower taxes. I'd like to see a pause in all immigration. Do I think that's going to happen? Nope. But I'll take what I can get. Even if it weren't Muslims. If he said white Europeans, I'd still be in favor.

Trump is single handedly pulling the window to the right. And the longer he stays in the race, the further it moves.

The Godfather said...

I wish that Tromp's opponents would stop the bleeding-heart criticism and point out that what Tromp has proposed is stupid and won't work (actually, Christie said that, but I haven't found any news report of why he thinks it wouldn't work). How do you know that someone seeking to enter the country as a tourist, for example, is a Muslim? Ask him/her, and expect an honest answer? How foolish can you be? You want a letter from his/her Baptist pastor attesting to his/her regular attendance at Sunday worship, and Wednesday evening , too? The Islamists can provide whatever you want.

Yes, I'm offended by Tromp's lack of respect for American values (just as I have been offended by Obama's lack of respect for American values), but the primary reason this episode shows that he shouldn't be president is that it's a stupid proposal, and we don't need a stupid president.

Fernandinande said...

"Donald Trump's reprehensible call"

Donald Trump's prehensible call and prehensile tail.

"State Department Already Has Religious Tests for Refugees"

dreams said...

This is the reason for Trump's appeal. Just for the record, Ted Cruz is my first choice.

"But on the other hand, watching the media and establishment freakout over Trump’s proposal to ban Muslim immigration makes me want to become anti-anti-Trump. The media and the establishment studiously avoid recognizing the serious source of Trump’s appeal (beyond his show biz genius), which is the sheer incompetence of government, and the revolting way our government (especially Obama) condescends to us with empty platitudes and vacuous clichés. From the Obamacare website, running VA hospitals, securing the border and managing immigration, the mania for climate change, to the plainly wrong assurances that there was no domestic threat from ISIS, it’s one clown show after another. The only other candidates who get this as clearly as Trump are Cruz and Fiorina, but they don’t have Trump’s celebrity flamboyance nor share his recklessness. And consequently they aren’t getting one tenth the media attention as Trump."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/there-is-not-trump-card.php

Anonymous said...

The "shaming" of Trump is warranted. We are all members of a society, we use peer pressure which includes laws to keep from spiraling into an anarchy. Shaming serves a purpose, but a narcissist won't be shamed. The shaming is possibly aimed at those who support this sort of megalomaniac. Shame on you! Who knows, if Germans had shamed those who voted for Hitler more, maybe it wouldn't have ended the way it did. When an obvious psychopath's rantings resonate with a large group of people, our society is in trouble.

Fabi said...

Some random lefty above: Racism!

Islam is a race? I learn something new everyday from the left. None of it has any value.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

When it's proposed that Christian and Yazidi refugees be put at the front of the line for immigration, I think of Soviet Jews. They were, as the Christians and Yazidi now are, specially singled out for torment. Why should they not come first?

American Liberal Elite said...

I took something called Property II. The prof gave us the same exam he had given the prior year.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

for all of the hysteria of his critics they have yet to make a relevant point against him on this issue

Why should they bother? Trump is worse than Voldermort!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBPs04qscJY

dreams said...

This makes sense to me.

"The leftward pressure on the Overton Window has been relentless, with conservatives reduced to applying herculean effort to simply maintain the cultural and political status quo. Yes, the Tea Party has nudged Republicans just a bit to the right, but it’s a sign of the success of the Left that a relatively unchanged GOP can be labeled as ever more extreme and “reactionary.” And few realities show this leftist success better than the fact that the Window now enables expressions of overt leftist hatred and bigotry — against Christians, against conservatives, against whites, and often against Jews.

Then along came Donald Trump. On key issues, he didn’t just move the Overton Window, he smashed it, scattered the shards, and rolled over them with a steamroller. On issues like immigration, national security, and even the manner of political debate itself, there’s no window left. Registration of Muslims? On the table. Bans on Muslims entering the country? On the table. Mass deportation? On the table. Walling off our southern border at Mexico’s expense? On the table. The current GOP front-runner is advocating policies that represent the mirror-image extremism to the Left’s race and identity-soaked politics."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/from-a-window-2.php

dreams said...

Because he isn't afraid to stand up to the liberal media Trump has made this possible.

"Here’s a term you need to know — the “Overton Window.” Developed by the late Joseph Overton, a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, the “window” refers to the range of acceptable political discourse on any given topic. As the Mackinac Center explains, “the ‘window’ of politically acceptable options is primarily defined not by what politicians prefer, but rather by what they believe they can support and still win re-election.” The key to shifting policy lies not so much in changing politicians but in changing the terms of the debate. In other words, “The window shifts to include different policy options not when ideas change among politicians, but when ideas change in the society that elects them.”"

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428200/donald-trump-overton-window-american-political-debate

Ron Winkleheimer said...

"I wish that Tromp's opponents would stop the bleeding-heart criticism and point out that what Tromp has proposed is stupid and won't work"

Why not? We currently require visas before we let people in from other countries unless they are in the visa waiver program.

http://www.travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visitor.html

What purpose do those visas serve?

http://www.travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/general/denials.html

Among other reasons, you can be denied a visa

(A) In general.-Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in-

(i) any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,

(ii) any other unlawful activity, or

(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means, is inadmissible.

(B) Terrorist activities-

(i) IN GENERAL.-Any alien who-

(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity,

(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));

(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;

(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of--

(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or


We are already screening people before we let them in to the country. Sure, some people might lie when applying for their visa, but discovering if someone is Christian or some other religion would be easier than discovering that they have jihadist intentions. Anyone coming from a majority Muslim country who claims to be Christian is most likely to be from an ethnic minority and is likely to be persecuted anyway. In addition, during interviews we could ask questions concerning theology and ethnicity. Its true that we aren't going to be able to screen out all Muslims, but any that got in would have to put some effort into it.

Achilles said...

Amanda said...
"The "shaming" of Trump is warranted."

That is the extent of Amanda's argument. SHAME!

If I created a religion that said it is ok for me to kill people that don't believe/sumbit to my religion, all women were the property of men, and gay people are buried to their waist and have rocks throne at them until they are dead my guess is Amanda would not be defending me.

Is it because I am white? Or because I disagree politically and stand in her way to power?

Amanda has put zero critical thought into this subject. She is taking things posted by people who think she is stupid and repeating them with no support. Yes Amanda the democrat party thinks you are stupid. Huffpo thinks you are stupid.

Don't worry I know you wont engage any of my points. We know you are incapable and too much of a lightweight.

eric said...

dreams,

Your quote from powerlineblog is spot on about the Overtone Window. It's why I support Trump and its why Conservatives who care about the culture war should support him to.

No matter what you may think about Trump or his policies, he is the only candidate in this race who is pulling the window to the right. While the President and Democrats co tinue to tug it to the left (gun restrictions sound reasonable when you put that up against Australian style gun confiscation, no?) Only Trump is yanking it to the right.

Weird. How does a Hillary plant and fake conservative manage to do that?

grackle said...

Trump is right! Eliminate ALL muslims!!

How sweet. Our thread’s first Moby.

I would go so far as to wipe them out as western civilization did the Knights Templar.

Our second Moby!

jr565 said...

""Donald Trump's reprehensible call"

Donald Trump's prehensible call and prehensile tail.

"State Department Already Has Religious Tests for Refugees"

and yet again, the chattering classes get up in arms over something that is inconceivably evil, to the point where even suggesting it would make you eviler than Voldemort....and it turns out it's already a law. Suggesting that no one really knows what the hell they are talking about.
But are willing to call people the worst possible names because it sounds bad.
If trump is eviler than Voldemort, those opposing Trump along these lines are dumber than Simple Jack. Meaning, they've gone full retard.
Just argue the merits of the proposal. Stop with the racism arguments.

jr565 said...

Larry J wrote:
Restrictions on immigration have been implemented many times before. The female terrorist from San Bernardino lied about her address on her visa application. That proves she wasn't properly vetted. Obama wants to bring in thousands of Syrian refugees but the FBI Director says it's impossible to vet them. The databases needed to vet them are either unavailable or simply don't exist.

by the same token though, it would be hard for Trump to vet them, since his vetting process seems to be asking them if they are Muslim. And they can always.... Lie.

damikesc said...

The "shaming" of Trump is warranted.

So, what kind of shaming is not warranted? Can I slut shame a whore?

Who knows, if Germans had shamed those who voted for Hitler more, maybe it wouldn't have ended the way it did. When an obvious psychopath's rantings resonate with a large group of people, our society is in trouble.

...but enough about Bernie Sanders/Hillary Clinton/Black Lives Matter/college "safe spaces"/student "activists"...

damikesc said...

I have proof that Trump is onto something.

Thomas Friedman HATES him.

Anonymous said...

Achilles, it's not that I don't want to engage you, but honestly it's pretty evident that no matter what I would argue you would have a knee jerk antagonistic response. I try not to waste my precious time arguing with those who are intractable. If I had even a glimmer of hope that you could be reasoned with I might decide to engage you at some point. In the meantime quite whining about me not engaging you, it's your own lack of critical thinking that puts me off.

The Godfather said...

@Ron Winkleheimer (3:23 pm): Thanks for your informed response to my post, but I really think the material you cite supports my argument (that the Tromp proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the US is stupid and unworkable) more than refutes it.

Sure, we ask questions and we do "vetting" of all legal immigrants, and to a lesser extent of visitors. But the Tromp proposal to bar ALL Muslims is supposed to add an extra layer of protection; but does it? The objective is supposed to be to keep out agents of IS and AQ and other terrorist groups, who aspire to kill Americans. Of course, as a prospective target, I support the Objective. Is there anything in Tromp's proposal (or in his rant, which might be more accurate) that the terrorists couldn't easily circumvent if they want to get their agents into this country? If not, all it would do is p*ss off the non-terrorists Muslims in the ME (and here at home) that we ought to have (and need to have) as allies.

damikesc said...

Achilles, it's not that I don't want to engage you, but honestly it's pretty evident that no matter what I would argue you would have a knee jerk antagonistic response.

"I won't engage because you won't agree with me"

I try not to waste my precious time arguing with those who are intractable. If I had even a glimmer of hope that you could be reasoned with I might decide to engage you at some point. In the meantime quite whining about me not engaging you, it's your own lack of critical thinking that puts me off.

You're the one who said you weren't here to discuss things and was here to be a troll. Don't be snippy when others notice.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@The Godfather

I don't know if Trump's proposal is feasible or not. I suspect that you are correct that it would alienate Muslim countries that we need to at least pretend to be allies with. But, notice how Trump is already shifting the Overton Window. The immediate reaction from the PTB is "you can't say that, its racist." However, it turns out that large numbers of citizens, a majority it would seem, agree with The Donald. So, the argument shifts to it not being workable for the following reasons.

Personally, I think discussing why something won't work is far superior to knee-jerk accusations of RACISS! The fact is, most people aren't racist, they just don't want to get shot and killed at office Christmas parties. Trump is actually proposing something. The Government is pretty much just telling everyone that they deserve what they get.

Anglelyne said...

The Godfather: If not, all it would do is p*ss off the non-terrorists Muslims in the ME (and here at home) that we ought to have (and need to have) as allies.

"If we don't let Muslims keep pouring into the West, it will piss off the Muslims abroad and the ones already here and they won't help us with the terrorism problem caused by messing about incompetently in Muslim countries and letting Muslims pour into the West."

Do you really not see how pathetic that line of argument is?

Muslims have been pouring into the West at an accelerating rate for a while now. How many more millions do we have to let pour in before we see a return on this totally brilliant immigration mastuh-plan in terms of reduced terrorism on Western territory? Is there a sweet spot in terms of number and origin? Will another half-million Somalis do the trick? Apparently they're still having a problem with the yoofs in Minneapolis, better funnel in a few thousand more stat.

Saudis? Obviously you can never get enough of those. Syrians - I dunno, some of the Syrians I know are accomplished professionals and seem pretty chill - they might even be Christians, so maybe no joy there. Maybe we can supplement them with a few million Pakistani hill tribesmen, who have done so much to enrich the civic life of Britain. And I hear there are plenty of Eritreans, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Senegalese, Albanians, etc. showing up as "Syrian refugees" in Europe, so maybe we can entice a few hundred thousand of those here at least. Shame we're going to have to compete with Britain, France, Sweden, Germany, etc., for these prime terror-reducing specimens, though.

Yeah, sure, it'll mean a metastasizing surveillance state becoming a permanent fixture of life in the good ol' U S of A, an explosion of grievance barnacles on the body politic, and the continuing erosion of civic capital, but, hey, that's a small price to pay for showing some rispek' to "American values", no?

Remember: Everything is exactly the same as everything else. It is the rock on which our great republic was founded.

SukieTawdry said...

Even if it is self-imposed, what a monumental drag never being able to use a question (not even a tweaked version) more than once on an exam. How many questions do your exams typically have? Thanks for the Spiro link.

The Godfather said...

@Ron Winkleheimer: You and I have come pretty close to agreement -- at least there's nothing in your 6:23 pm comment that I dispute. It's good to see that a frank exchange of views can enlighten both discussants.

@Angelyne: I'm afraid you haven't graduated to the intelligent discussion level yet. As an exercise, you should try coming up with cogent arguments about what someone you disagree with actually said, not what the voices in your head tell you that people who disagree with you really mean.

Douglas said...

FYI, the University of Chicago Law School absolutely forbids reusing exam questions, even from exams given at other schools. This seems like a prudent rule to me.

Paul said...

Ok, we know Carter banned Iranians from coming. We know the U.S. government was VERY PICKY a hundred years ago at Ellis Island in allowing immigrants. We also know it is quite constitutional as aliens don't have the 'right' to come here.

So.. what is the problem?

Coupe said...

I just saw where Trump wants to shut down the Internet in certain places.

For such a self-described "smart" man, he sounded pretty ignorant about the technology.

Achilles said...

Amanda said...
"Achilles, it's not that I don't want to engage you, but honestly it's pretty evident that no matter what I would argue you would have a knee jerk antagonistic response. I try not to waste my precious time arguing with those who are intractable. If I had even a glimmer of hope that you could be reasoned with I might decide to engage you at some point. In the meantime quite whining about me not engaging you, it's your own lack of critical thinking that puts me off."

I do not know what it would take to get you to engage. You might look way back when you first got here and notice I asked you questions about your positions and gave you a chance to describe your paradigm. I would be willing to bet money that nobody here makes more of an effort to understand the opposing point of view and the person behind it.

I am still trying to hold off but your posts are not just inconsistent and poorly thought out. They are specifically designed to call into question my integrity, honor, and decency. I deployed 4 times and stood in the silent boot and hat formation several times for friends to defend your rights. I don't want anything special, just don't question my honor or motives or the fact I would die to protect your way of life.

Rhythm and Balls and I got off to a rocky start and I look forward to another chance to get into it with him on something we disagree with. It will happen. Funny thing is we both learned that we have more in common as far as goals and results than we differ on, and by a wide margin. Most of the posters here disagree with me on gay marriage and abortion. But most of the posters here know we all have common goals but differing ways to get there.

I guarantee I will give you a fair shake. I may come off as rough. I am working on how I present myself however and one of my goals is to be less off putting to the fairer sex although it isn't really the gender issue that is in the way here. Constructive commentary on that front is appreciated.

But questioning my critical thinking skills or ability to adjust my paradigm? That wont fly. You are projecting that thought onto me to avoid engaging.

ganderson said...

Angelyne: As Baldrick would put it " We go 'round the "hostiple" and ask everyone 'are you a Muslim terrorists?'. If it was me I'd give up."

Jason said...

Angelyne can think circles around this Godfather fellow and he doesn't realize it.